Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is accusing Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham of calling her by the wrong name. “Fox News likes to say my name (incorrectly) as ‘Cortez,’ which I can only imagine is because that sounds more ‘stereotypically’ Hispanic and probably incites more ‘anxiety’ for them,” said AOC. As her poll ratings plummet, the 29-year-old made it clear what her real name is, and that’s when she instantly regretted it. You’ll love this.
It looks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is freaking out as her poll ratings plummet to all-time lows, and she blamed Fox News. Thirty-one percent of registered voters in New York state view the freshman House Democrat favorably, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view, according to a Siena College poll released Monday.
Immediately, the former bartender blamed Fox News which she views as the only place conservatives get their information. “The reason people know more is bc Fox News has turned into ‘AOC TMZ’ (no offense to TMZ), so awareness is growing w/ GOPers,” tweeted AOC last Saturday. “We can’t be scared by that,” she added.
The reason people know more is bc Fox News has turned into “AOC TMZ” (no offense to TMZ), so awareness is growing w/ GOPers.@JaneMayerNYer has reported deeply on this propaganda machine + it will be aimed at any Dem they want. Nothing changes that.
The problem is she is scared and that’s why she went bonkers on Fox News’ biggest hosts today. The truth is AOC is polling badly with all her constituents even though she claims it’s just old white guys. So, she decided to accuse Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham of botching her name purposely and accusing them of a veiled racist act.
“Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked Fox News, claiming hosts on that network intentionally called her by the wrong name,” the Daily Caller reports.
My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop. That’s my name.
No, you can’t say “Cortez.” I’ve never used that in my life. “Cortez” is referring to someone else.
Even if they‘re trying to be rude + wrong, my dad’s last name was Ocasio anyway.
See she specifically mentioned Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity, referring to them as “Ingra,” “Carl,” and “Hann” to drive her point home. “My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop. That’s my name. No, you can’t say ‘Cortez.’ I’ve never used that in my life. ‘Cortez’ is referring to someone else. Even if they‘re trying to be rude + wrong, my dad’s last name was Ocasio anyway. (His name was hyphenated too, though),” adds the New York Congresswoman.
There’s only one problem with her accusation: it appears to be false. Tom Elliott, the founder of Grabien media-clipping service, noted that in a search from the beginning of March to the current date — 20 days worth of programming — Ingraham had never once referred to the freshman lawmaker as “Cortez,” the Daily Caller adds.
You may be unsurprised to learn that this is untrue. I checked every mention of “Cortez” on the Ingraham Angle in March and didn’t find @IngrahamAngle referring to @AOC as “Cortez” once. On 3/14, Rabbi Aryeh Spero said “Cortez and her quartet,” but Laura never did. https://t.co/MRhGnYxQFH
The Daily Caller performed a similar search over the same time period and discovered that Carlson had never addressed Ocasio-Cortez by any name other than “Ocasio-Cortez” or “AOC,” which she also said was fine by her standards.
Yet another search revealed that the only possible offender was Hannity, who referred to Ocasio-Cortez by just the second half of her last name just twice in 20 days. He named her correctly well over 100 times in that same timeframe, so it may be reasonable to assume that he wasn’t trying to call her by “the wrong name.”
“The only person I’ve noticed who obsesses over AOC being Hispanic is AOC herself. It’s a constant topic. Conservative media generally focus on her overzealous Green New Deal, her sketchy campaign finance issues, and her frequent hypocrisy,” said Tom Elliot.
Well, Americans weren’t impressed with AOC’s name blame game. “Jeepers, you are sensitive! Listen, you might want to start getting used to people calling you by names that aren’t Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They are going to get a lot worse, especially if you keep talking so much,” tweeted Todd Thomas.
Jeepers, you are sensitive! Listen, you might want to start getting used to people calling you by names that aren’t Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They are going to get a lot worse, especially if you keep talking so much.
When will the beleaguered Congresswoman learn? She comes off like a petulant child whining as if someone hurt her politically correct feelings when the truth is no one called her by the wrong name. She has three names as far as we can see, and any one of them will do. In fact, this is America so we will call her by whatever name we please.
This is why no 29-year-old leftist should be near the halls of Congress. She’s making complaints about nothing while the country has real issues she fails to address. Well, at least we know calling her “Cortez” makes her go nuts, so that’s what everyone should call her from now on. It’s the least we can do as a response to her bringing us the Green New Deal.
I want to talk you about the Electoral College and why it matters.
Alright, I know this doesn’t sound the like most sensational topic of the day, but, stay with me because, I promise you, it’s one of the most important.
To explain why requires a very brief civics review.
The President and Vice President of the United States are not chosen by a nationwide, popular vote of the American people; rather, they are chosen by 538 electors. This process is spelled out in the United States Constitution.
Why didn’t the Founders just make it easy, and let the Presidential candidate with the most votes claim victory? Why did they create, and why do we continue to need, this Electoral College?
The answer is critical to understanding not only the Electoral College, but also America.
The Founders had no intention of creating a pure majority-rule democracy. They knew from careful study of history what most have forgotten today, or never learned: pure democracies do not work.
Democracy has been colorfully described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. In a pure democracy, bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of a country. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs.
This is why we have three branches of government — Executive, Legislative and Judicial. It’s why each state has two Senators no matter what its population, but also different numbers of Representatives based entirely on population. It’s why it takes a supermajority in Congress and three-quarters of the states to change the Constitution.
And, it’s why we have the Electoral College.
Here’s how the Electoral College works.
The Presidential election happens in two phases. The first phase is purely democratic. We hold 51 popular elections every presidential election year: one in each state and one in D.C.
On Election Day in 2012, you may have thought you were voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but you were really voting for a slate of presidential electors. In Rhode Island, for example, if you voted for Barack Obama, you voted for the state’s four Democratic electors; if you voted for Mitt Romney you were really voting for the state’s four Republican electors.
Part Two of the election is held in December. And it is this December election among the states’ 538 electors, not the November election, which officially determines the identity of the next President. At least 270 votes are needed to win.
Why is this so important?
Because the system encourages coalition-building and national campaigning. In order to win, a candidate must have the support of many different types of voters, from various parts of the country.
Winning only the South or the Midwest is not good enough. You cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of the country is supporting you.
But if winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities or the biggest states. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia or Iowa or Montana think?
But, you might ask, isn’t the election really only about the so-called swing states?
Actually, no. If nothing else, safe and swing states are constantly changing.
California voted safely Republican as recently as 1988. Texas used to vote Democrat. Neither New Hampshire nor Virginia used to be swing states.
Most people think that George W. Bush won the 2000 election because of Florida. Well, sort of. But he really won the election because he managed to flip one state which the Democrats thought was safe: West Virginia. Its 4 electoral votes turned out to be decisive.
No political party can ignore any state for too long without suffering the consequences. Every state, and therefore every voter in every state, is important.
The Electoral College also makes it harder to steal elections. Votes must be stolen in the right state in order to change the outcome of the Electoral College. With so many swing states, this is hard to predict and hard to do.
But without the Electoral College, any vote stolen in any precinct in the country could affect the national outcome — even if that vote was easily stolen in the bluest California precinct or the reddest Texas one.
The Electoral College is an ingenious method of selecting a President for a great, diverse republic such as our own — it protects against the tyranny of the majority, encourages coalition building and discourages voter fraud. Our Founders were proud of it! We can be too.
(Natural News) Now we come to the end game for humanity. This is it, folks: They have a plan to collapse global food production, kill off over 90% of the human race, devastate natural ecosystems and pollute the Earth’s atmosphere… and it’s all being sold to you under the banner of “environmentalism.”
The scheme is called “global dimming,” and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. This is literally what the mad environmental scientists are now proposing — the very same people who have, for years, claimed that “chemtrails” are a conspiracy theory and don’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they want to chemtrail the entire planet in order to “save” us all from global warming.
“Stratospheric aerosol injection” now the new name for chemtrails / geoengineering
The global dimming scheme is, of course, based on spraying chemtrails into the upper atmosphere using thousands of high-altitude flights that release pollution to dim the sun. The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who have for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory. So they’ve changed the name to “stratospheric aerosol injection,” and they now have a science paper that outlines all the costs involved.
“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing,” writes Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner in their paper, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Published in Environmental Research Letters, you can view the full text of the study at this link.
Geoengineering is another term that many people use synonymously with “chemtrails.” And now it’s a strategy being openly advocated by scientists to halt so-called “climate change,” a fake science hoax that has been perpetrated on the world by power-hungry globalists who want humanity to surrender to global rule in the name of “saving the planet.”
The study cites the specific aircraft that would be needed to achieve chemtrails pollution. “[P]urpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities” would be deployed to spray sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The paper proposes 4000 flights a year, costing $2.25 billion per year, continuing over 15 years to make sure the atmosphere is significantly polluted to dim the sun and achieve the terraforming goals of globalists (see more details, below).
In the conclusion of their abstract, the study authors explain the program would require, “thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases,” making it almost impossible to keep secret.
Of course, this very program has already begun, and secrecy isn’t necessary when you have the entire media and science establishment condemning any belief in chemtrails as a form of mental illness. So just remember: As they pollute the skies and dim the sun, if you point out that they’re polluting the skies and dimming the sun, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”
And there’s no such thing as chemtrails, you see. Nope, it’s “stratospheric aerosol injection” now, which sounds almost sciency. That’s how this program is already being perpetrated right under our noses, right now, even while the media runs a global cover-up to dismiss such ideas as bizarre theories.
The global controllers hope you never read the science papers, of course, because there, geoengineering is routinely cited and even advocated as the “solution” to climate change.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) explained… and yeah, it’s just another name for chemtrails
“Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km,” explain study authors. They also ask, “Could it be done in secret?”
The study offers heavy discussion on the design and costs of aircraft that could deliver the planned pollution to the upper atmosphere:
IPCC (2018) states that ‘there is high agreement that aircrafts after some modifications could inject millions of tons of SO2 in the lower stratosphere (~20 km)’.
The overall goal of the geoengineering program is to inject 5 million tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, otherwise known as “smog”) into the atmosphere. Achieving that goal, “assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program,” write the study authors, somehow claiming it is “rational” to disperse mass pollution across the atmosphere of your own planet. The same authors also claim this program must be conducted, “purely out of humanitarian and environmental considerations.”
Shocking realization: This is terraforming planet Earth to collapse the global food supply and kill off humans
In considering the sheer lunacy of the “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” plan, I feel compelled to state that these climate change / global warming scientists are dangerously insane sociopaths and they must be stopped before they murder us all. These lunatics, if given enough government funding, will literally murder our planet and destroy human civilization. Such is the cost of the decades of false propaganda in our public schools that has brainwashed children into believing “climate change” is real and must be halted. The schemes now being proposed to halt this non-existent problem will, themselves, bring about the global destruction that children are being warned about with global warming.
This global pollution / terraforming program, if allowed to continue, could unleash the following devastating consequences, especially if deployed at a time when the sun is in its own dimming cycle that would accelerate global cooling.
#1) Global collapse of food crops – The reduction in solar radiation caused by geoengineering, combined with the natural cycle of global cooling from sun cycles, could produce a sharp reduction in food crop production across the globe. This would result in increased food prices and reduced food supplies, adding to vectors for civil unrest and “climate refugees” invading First World nations to escape starvation.
#2) Global rise in cancer from vitamin D deficiency – Reduction in solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet would exacerbate vitamin D deficiencies that already strongly contribute to cancer fatalities around the world. Sunlight is currently the primary source of vitamin D for billions of world citizens. Dimming the sun would be a death sentence for millions each year who would suffer the dire consequences of chronic vitamin D deficiencies.
#4) Massive loss of habitat and ecosystems due to decreased sunlight and colder temperatures – Entire ecosystems — such as rainforests — could be devastated by a pollution-initiated drop in solar radiation. Marine ecosystems also rely heavily on solar radiation to power the photosynthesis of ocean plants such as seaweeds, grasses and algae, which serve as a pillar food source for the entire marine food web. Dimming the sun would have devastating consequences for all ecosystems on the planet, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, habitat and eco-diversity.
#5) Huge increase in global acid rain that will devastate forests and food crops – The mass injection of SO2 into the atmosphere will result in SO2 being dispersed into lower levels of the atmosphere over time. There, mixed with rain storms, it will create sulfurous acid, otherwise known as acid rain. This acid rain will devastate forests and food crops and result in the acidification of crop soils, destabilizing soil microbes and leading the widespread crop losses.
#6) Decreased plant production of oxygen that’s necessary for humans, primates and mammals to survive – Nearly all plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses CO2 as a “fuel” and produces oxygen (O2) as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through chemtrails pollution would reduce the production of oxygen by plants, resulting in a global fall in atmospheric oxygen levels, ultimately leading to the mass asphyxiation of humans, primates and mammals if allowed to continue. Even the EPA (see source below) admits that SO2 interferes with human respiration and makes it difficult for people to breathe.
Even the EPA recognizes sulfur dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that makes it difficult for humans to breathe
Note carefully that the geoengineering efforts being advocated to dim the sun are based on sulfur dioxide, a known pollutant. “Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult,” warns the EPA. “…[G]aseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth… SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems,” the EPA writes.
In other words, it isn’t even debated whether sulfur dioxide is a pollutant. It’s smog (or technically, it reacts to create smog), and the very idea that mass polluting the atmosphere with SO2 would somehow “save” the planet is rooted in nothing less than advanced psychosis or some other dangerous form of mental illness. That such schemes are marketed under the banner of “science” just shows how twisted the institution of science has now become.
Why would any rational institution seek to mass pollute our entire planet and destroy food crops, forests, mammals, primates and humans? The answer is even more shocking than the proposal itself, it turns out. Keep reading, as one possible explanation for all this continues below…
It wasn’t long ago that scientists warned about “global cooling” and the coming Ice Age
It was only a generation ago that young scientists were being warned that Earth was entering a “global cooling” crisis that would bring about a whole new ice age. This was the climate panic of the 1970s and early 1980s. Today’s older scientists remember the warnings quite well. We were all told that if we didn’t find a way to warm the planet, we would all perish as Earth was turned into a ball of ice.
Beginning in the 1990s, the scientists flipped the script, reversing their warning and suddenly claiming the problem was too much heat. We were all going to die from global warming if we didn’t change something, we were told. A decade or so later, when it was revealed that government science scammers were faking all the warming data, they changed the scam to “climate change,” since they couldn’t scientifically support either warming or cooling.
Here’s the cover of TIME Magazine from 1977, which warns, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age,” then urges readers to get on board to save the planet, saying, “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.”
Today, we’re told the most absurd, insane things by these scientists who insist that the climate never changed at all before the year 1920, with the rise of the combustion engine and “human activity.” And now we’re constantly terrorized by the fake news media into thinking that if we don’t pollute the Earth’s atmosphere with smog, we will all somehow die from the rise of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 most important greening nutrient for plants, forests and food crops.
So now they’ve decided they have to poison the atmosphere to fight climate change, and they’ve got about a billion gullible world citizens convinced that this is somehow an amazing idea. What they would really unleash, of course, is absolutely catastrophic to all life on our world. Remember: They want to disperse billions of tons of sulfur dioxide (smog) into the atmosphere through massive government-funded chemtrailing of the planet. The question now emerges: Is the destruction of humanity deliberate? If so, who would hatch such a nefarious plan?
Geoengineering is a planet-wide weapon system being deployed to eliminate human life on Earth while terraforming the planet for some other purpose
Here’s the cosmic inconvenient truth that Al Gore doesn’t want you to consider. What we are really witnessing here is the planned terraforming of planet Earth for some other purpose. And by “other,” I mean other than human.
If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution, acid rain, food crop failures, oxygen depletion and global dimming. You would, instead, try to reduce pollution, support plant life, enhance food crop production and protect global ecosystems from pollution. That’s the normal, rational thing that any human being would naturally want to pursue.
Yet we are subjected to these nefarious geoengineering schemes that directly contradict every principle of sustainable life on Earth. And it’s all described as a way to “save” the planet, even as it would destroy global life support for humans.
I can’t help but be reminded of the outstanding film Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise. In the film, the Cruise character thinks he’s protecting human civilization, but he’s actually (unknowingly) working for extraterrestrials who are stealing Earth’s resources and exterminating humans. The film is one of the best science fiction films of all time, and its story sounds eerily similar to what may be happening right now with so-called “geoengineering.”
Who (or what) would want to alter the atmosphere, decimate oxygen levels, destroy the food supply and collapse human civilization? The answer should be obvious: Something that is in competition with humans and sees no further use for humanity. Human life on Earth appears to be in the process of being “cleansed” in a cosmic ethnic cleansing scheme that will produce an altered, low-oxygen atmosphere that might prove advantageous to a life form which isn’t already part of Earth’s existing ecosystem. The reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would make the planet more hospital to a life form that originated from a planet located farther from its home sun than Earth is from our own sun.
It raises the obvious, if bizarre-sounding, question: Are Earth’s globalists preparing the planet for a post-human era? And is that plan disguised as a “climate change” emergency course of action so that the sheeple can be told the mass pollution of the skies is a bold plan to save humanity rather than exterminate it? What if “climate change” is actually a cosmic false flag hoax that was designed from the very start to convince Earthlings to support their own extermination? Given the now-planned destruction of Earth’s atmosphere in the name of “climate change,” we must now consider such possibilities, no matter how bizarre they first seem.
Why are all the globalists suddenly talking about escaping to Mars and terraforming Marsinto a habitat where humans can survive? Why are globalists now so desperate the alter Earth’s atmosphere and make the planet inhospitable to humans? Why such a recent focus on the Arctic seed vault to preserve the seeds of life in preparation for a global cataclysm? Why are so many globalist insiders building underground bunkers and living in them?
I don’t have the answers to all these questions, but I do know that the fairy tale stories we’re being told about “climate change” and how we must save the planet by polluting the skies are rooted in complete quack science fiction and brainwashing propaganda.
On the other hand, if humans are stupid enough to destroy their own planet in the name of saving the planet, perhaps they’re simply not qualified to participate in an intelligence universe after all. Natural selection, after all, is likely playing out on a cosmic scale, and Earth appears to be flunking the cosmic IQ test that wonders, “Hey, is that civilization stupid enough to commit suicide based on a fairy tale hoax?”
So far, it appears the answer for Earth and humans is a resounding “Yes!”
Scientists assure us that the next solar cycle will be the most quiet for the past 300 or so years. Not since the Maunder Minimum, the little ice age, has the sun been as quiet as it is predicted to be in the next cycle. Scientists say this could result in a mini ice age.
It is madness to seed the stratosphere with chemicals to block sunlight from reaching earth. Doing so could plunge the earth into a more serious, and longer lasting cold period that was seen 300 years ago. Growing seasons will be shorter, food supplies will run low, and massive civil unrest will result. After one week without food, people will begin killing each other to get it.
The wealthy, leftist, global elite, such as members of the Club of Rome (David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Prince Philip, and many others) are on record advocating the reduction of the world population down from its current level of about 7 billion, to a target range between 100 million to 2 billion people. How could this be achieved?
It seems to me that inducing a mini ice age would go a long way to starving a great number of people, especially if something were to interfere with the seeds farmers must now buy from Monsanto each year to grow our food. Since most of our genetically modified food now contains a terminator gene, resulting in sterile seeds, farmers can no longer save and replant seeds from the previous crop.
Conspiracy theory? I didn’t set a goal of drastically reducing the world population, the global elites did that. They failed to reveal their plans for achieving that goal. Starvation on a massive scale seems as good a plan as others, better than some. Starving people are too weak to fight back or mount an attack against those who withhold resources they need.
And let us not forget, that the same people who will say this is a crazy conspiracy theory, said the same thing when we said that jet planes were seeding the atmosphere with chemicals.
Glanz et al evaluated the trends in undervaccination in a population of 323 247 children aged 2 to 24 months and compared health care utilization rates between the undervaccinated and age-appropriately vaccinated children. See also the editorial by Opel and Marcuse.
“Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had lower rates of outpatient visits, lower rates of ED encounters, and no significant difference in inpatient admission rates compared with age-appropriately vaccinated children.”
So…if your child gets all 53 vaccines on time they will be significantly more likely to require medical attention.
John McCain’s 2008 campaign staff allegedly had evidence that Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Pennsylvania and Ohio on election night, but McCain chose not to pursue voter fraud, according to internal Stratfor emails published by WikiLeaks.
In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled ” Insight – The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only – Pls Do Not Forward **,” Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”.
In an email sent two days earlier and titled “Insight – McCain #5 ** internal use only – Pls do not forward **,” Burton wrote:
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
The Nov. 7 email also contains allegations that Democrats made a “six-figure donation” to Rev. Jesse Jackson to silence him on the topic of Israel after an October 2008 interview in which he said Obama’s presidency would remove the clout of “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades.”
2) It appears the Dems “made a donation” to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a “nice six-figure donation”. This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
If true the allegations prompt questions of how the fallout has affected the politics of Obama’s current administration and how it will effect this year’s presidential election.
Romney registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence, but the Romneys’ former realtor told GOP consultant Fred Karger that they moved to California. Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Burton is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). The DSS assists the Department of Defense in following leads and doing forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the U.S. government in ongoing criminal investigations.
Stratfor provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymousaround Christmas.
Serving as ground zero for the $15 minimum wage battle, New York City saw its fast-food workers also serve as the subjects in an experiment that completely ignored the laws of economics.
When supporters of minimum wage increases argued that entry-level workers were not getting paid enough to support their families, experts warned that forcing employers to increase the wages for unskilled workers would produce unintended consequences. Now that critics of the law were proven right and workers are getting fired, proponents are doubling down.
Critics hoped that minimum wage supporters would finally understand that employers should be able to negotiate wages with workers freely, but those suffering the consequences seem blind to reality.
Will they ever realize that their push for a minimum wage hike is why they are out of a job?
For a company to offer a higher wage to an employee, it must first be able to afford the hike.According to a recent New York Timespiece, workers who supported and helped to push for the minimum wage increase in New York City are now being fired—and for unfair reasons, they claim.
But how could anyone call these firings unfair when employers are being forced to raise everybody’s wage?
You Can’t Repeal the Laws of Economics
Serving as ground zero for the $15 minimum wage battle, New York City saw its fast-food workers also serve as the subjects in an experiment that completely ignored the laws of economics.
After protests and rallies demanding a higher minimum wage and different proposals regarding scheduling procedures, workers got what they wanted. But now that they are being fired, they are organizing to, once again, ask the city to change the law so they are protected from “unfair” firings.
Hoping the city will apply some job security to their minimum wage positions, workers think this change would finally make things right. After all, all it takes is a law and life will be perfect, right?
But as economists have explained, it takes money to increase the minimum wage.
For a company to offer a higher wage to an employee, it must first be able to afford the hike.
For companies, paying entry-level, unskilled workers the same they would pay a manager or a seasoned employee doesn’t make any sense.
For companies, paying entry-level, unskilled workers the same they would pay a manager or a seasoned employee doesn’t make any sense—not because employers aren’t compassionate but because they would have to pull in more money to afford these high wages.
When governments force them to pay unskilled workers more, they necessarily have to cut costs somewhere to avoid losing money. After all, the goal is staying open and profitable. If the employer is losing money, he or she can’t pay anyone anything.
The way they find to cut costs is to cut the number of employees on payroll. And precisely because labor laws are already so suffocating, employers must use other excuses to fire employees, as “I can’t afford paying you and hundreds of others the minimum wage” is not enough of an excuse.
Of course, workers who fought for the minimum wage increase feel they are being unfairly targeted. But the reality is that what’s missing is some basic understanding of economics, which would help them realize that simply increasing the minimum wage by decree does nothing but limit the labor market, hurting the unskilled and the poor more than any other groups.
Minimum Wage Leaders Are Peddling Unsound Economics
As The New York Times explained, it’s unfortunate that labor unions are often the first to push and mobilize workers for minimum wage pushes.
Union bosses will use bad reasoning and unsound economics to persuade workers to join them, and all because they want more people to join their ranks and pay their union dues. Unfortunately, those who join the union masses are the ones now suffering the backlash. And what’s worse, now that workers are mobilizing once again to push for more job “protections” from lawmakers, we’ll see even more unexpected consequences.
In no time, all fast-food joints across New York City will use nothing but self-serving kiosks and robots (yes, robots!). Otherwise, they will all have to shut down completely because they simply won’t be able to afford to follow the city’s law.
Now, the laws of economics, on the other hand, those are impossible to go around.
A new profile piece from The Washington Post on Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke documented multiple instances of highly disturbing behavior from the failed Senate candidate, including eating dirt and taking poop from his kid’s diaper and putting it into a bowl and telling his wife that it was an avocado.
The piece specifically focused on Beto’s marriage to his wife Amy, who indicated that she was not exactly thrilled to be in a marriage that was so heavily involved in politics.
Buried deep in the article was a paragraph that documented his “‘Psycho’-style scares in the shower,” and another bizarre incident from their marriage. The Post reports:
One time, according to a friend, Beto collected an especially verdant turd from one of their kids’ diapers and put it in a bowl, telling Amy it was avocado. (Neither would confirm this, though Beto did allow it sounded like something he’d do.)
The Post also documented how Beto dealt with his loss to Cruz last year in the Texas Senate race, noting that he was “more prone to higher highs and lower lows” than his wife. The Post adds:
In January, Beto hit the road, much as his father had done before him, and drew energy from the people he met, and — on one stop in New Mexico he didn’t write about in his blog — by eating New Mexican dirt said to have regenerative powers. (He brought some home for the family to eat, too.)
These strange examples of behavior from Beto are just the most recent incidents to surface as a Reuter’s report from late last week also documented deranged thoughts from Beto’s past.
Reuters’ report, which focused on the revelation that O’Rourke was involved in a hacker group growing up, also highlighted writings from him that are reportedly still available on a chat board he created.
“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street,” O’Rourke wrote. “They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles…. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams.”
“As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two,” O’Rourke continued. “I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”
Reuters also noted that O’Rourke reportedly fantasized about “toppling the government,” but doubted that “the masses would support such a radical move at this time.”
In a seperate report published later that night, Reuters admitted that the reporter who broke the story — which was a part of a book that he was writing — had the story for nearly two years and told O’Rourke that he would not publish it until after his Senate run.